Prez-pardon problems go far beyond Joe Biden's fishy signatures
Autopen abuse is only the latest wrinkle in the now decades-old problems surrounding the presidential pardon power.
The Justice Department is now looking into whether President Joe Biden was sufficiently competent when he issued a handful of pardons in his final days in office; some even suggest that misuse of the infamous autopen allowed for others to slip through clemencies without involving Joe at all.
Biden in all 'signed' over 4,000 pardons of some kind, many of them utterly rancid: from hundreds of commutations for vile bribe-takers, con artists and other sleazoids to letting literal child murderers dodge the death penalty.
Advertisement
What if anything did the president know about what 'he' was doing?
No one doubts he chose to pardon son Hunter, and in fact all signs are that he truly signed that one himself; and he likely also intended to hand those get-out-jail-free cards to other family: siblings and in-laws James and his wife, Sara; his sister, Valerie, and her husband, John Owens; and his brother Francis — even if those got the autopen treatment.
But did he really opt to issue preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley?
Advertisement
Indeed, it's not actually clear that the constitutional power extends to such 'blank check' clemencies, rather than the traditional pardons for specific crimes or at least specific actions not yet charged.
On the autopen front, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is forcing the 'politboro,' the inner circle of advisers who ran the White House as Joe slipped ever further, to testify under oath about decision-making in the final months, at least.
All this is separate from kosher-but-outrageous pardons, such as President Bill Clinton shameless clemencies, with hours left in his presidency, for his former business partner Susan McDougal, who was charged with contempt of court after refusing to testify against him, and for Marc Rich, an international fugitive whose wife had donated handsomely to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Presidential Library.
Advertisement
That sleeze-fest was so notorious it was labeled 'Pardongate.'
And, yes, some of President Donald Trump's pardons are controversial, too, including the blanket forgiveness of all Jan. 6 Capitol Riot offenses.
Which points to why probing the Biden pardons really should be bipartisan: Whichever party holds the White House when a power is first abused, the other party will get a chance to catch up — and the rule of law deteriorates that much more.
If the Biden crew crossed any constitutional lines, the public needs to know so the practice can be quashed before it becomes a trend.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Trump Drops A Cybersecurity Bombshell With Biden-Era Policy Reversal
Less than 24 hours after President Trump's public feud with Elon Musk, a new cybersecurity executive order was issued on June 6, 2025, introducing major revisions to the Biden administration's final cybersecurity directives. The order not only modifies key elements of Biden's January 2025 framework but also signals a broader realignment of federal cybersecurity priorities. It shifts focus away from federal digital identity initiatives and revises compliance-heavy software security mandates. Officially titled 'Sustaining Select Efforts To Strengthen The Nation's Cybersecurity And Amending Executive Order 13694 And Executive Order 14144,' the order represents a strategic departure from prior approaches, emphasizing operational pragmatism over regulatory expansion. Notably, it comes at a time when President Trump's nominee to lead the Cybersecurity And Infrastructure Security Agency, Sean Plankey, has yet to be confirmed due to opposition and delay tactics from both sides of the aisle. President Biden's Executive Order 14144 was issued on January 16, 2025, just four days before President Trump's inauguration. It was interpreted by many observers as an effort to define long-term cybersecurity direction before the change in administration. The order included measures to bolster software supply chain security, expand digital identity infrastructure and accelerate post-quantum cryptography adoption. However, this latest Trump order criticized several of these elements as overreaching or insufficiently vetted, characterizing them as 'problematic and distracting' and specifically noting that they were 'sneaked' into policy in the final hours of Biden's presidency. The language used in the accompanying fact sheet is unusually blunt for a federal document, suggesting a clear intent to publicly distance the new administration from its predecessor's policy posture. 1. Attribution Of Threats: Direct Language On Foreign Cyber Aggressors The executive order opens with unusually direct language, identifying the People's Republic of China as the most 'active and persistent' cyber threat to U.S. government systems, private sector networks and critical infrastructure. It also names Russia, Iran and North Korea as continuing sources of malicious cyber activity. This blunt attribution departs from the more generalized threat descriptions of previous administrations. By naming adversaries explicitly in the policy preamble, the administration signals a shift toward greater transparency in threat acknowledgment and a hardening of posture. The message is clear: U.S. cyber strategy is now being framed not only by evolving technologies but by intensifying geopolitical realities. 2. Software Security Compliance: Shifting From Mandated Attestations To Voluntary Implementation: Biden's order imposed a layered framework requiring federal contractors to submit attestations, artifacts and documentation tied to NIST's Secure Software Development Framework. Some would say that these requirements risked turning development teams into compliance teams. Trump's order eliminates attestations entirely. NIST will still provide guidance through the National Cybersecurity Center Of Excellence, but reporting is no longer mandatory. This reflects a shift toward flexibility over formality. 3. Digital Identity Verification: A Full Repeal Rooted In Fiscal And Legal Concerns: The Biden administration had envisioned digital credentials as a gateway to streamlined government services. Trump's order reverses course, citing concerns about entitlement fraud and improper access. The fact sheet explicitly warns that Biden's policy could have enabled unauthorized immigrants to obtain digital IDs. As a result, pilots on interoperability and identity federation are halted. 4. Artificial Intelligence In Cybersecurity: Tighter Focus On Defense And Vulnerability Management: Biden's order encouraged AI-driven collaboration across academia and industry. Trump's order takes a narrower view. It requires agencies to track vulnerabilities in AI systems, integrate them into incident response pipelines and limit data sharing to only what is feasible under security and confidentiality constraints. AI is repositioned as a potential liability to be secured, not a universal defense engine. 5. Post-Quantum Cryptography: A Deadline Remains But The Path Is Streamlined While both administrations agree on the risk posed by quantum computing, Trump's order simplifies the roadmap. By December 2025, CISA and NSA must publish a list of product categories ready for quantum-safe encryption. TLS 1.3 or its successor must be adopted by 2030. Oversight is split between NSA for national security systems and OMB for civilian agencies. 6. Cyber Sanctions Policy: A Narrowed Scope One of the more politically sensitive changes lies in how sanctions are applied. Biden's order allowed for cyber sanctions against any person involved in disinformation or cyber-enabled threats. Trump's revision limits this to foreign persons only. Domestic political activity is explicitly excluded, a move the administration describes as a safeguard against misuse of cyber enforcement tools. Initial industry feedback has been swift. The executive order's reorientation of cybersecurity priorities is already reverberating across the federal ecosystem, private sector and innovation community. From compliance-light procurement to a tighter national focus on AI risk, the changes are reshaping expectations. Defense integrators and established IT vendors are among the most immediate beneficiaries. By removing detailed compliance documentation, particularly attestations tied to secure software development, the order reduces friction in procurement and lowers operational risk. Contract cycles may accelerate as audit-readiness gives way to implementation focus. This shift rewards incumbents with mature delivery models and embedded federal relationships. With CISA's role redefined and federal oversight of digital identity rolled back, state and local governments may gain more autonomy to design cybersecurity programs that fit local contexts. For well-resourced jurisdictions, this could spur innovation. But for others, especially those lacking talent or funding, decentralization could create new coordination gaps. Additional federal guidance may be needed to prevent fragmentation in national critical infrastructure protection. For enterprises, the EO's elimination of standardized compliance frameworks is a mixed bag. Under the previous EO, the bar for secure software delivery was clear, particularly for organizations that invested in transparency and attestation. Without a common benchmark, proving trustworthiness becomes more subjective. Kevin Bocek, CyberArk's Senior Vice President of Innovation, emphasized that the industry is entering a new era of cybersecurity not only dominated by AI and automation, but also by emerging risks that are not yet widely addressed. 'It is affirming that the EO is serious about safe and secure AI, hopefully laying the foundation to critically address one of the most urgent and overlooked threats: machine identity sprawl,' Bocek noted. According to CyberArk, machine identities now outnumber human identities 82 to 1 within enterprises, yet 68% of organizations lack security controls to protect them. Without federal guidance and clear identity accountability, Bocek warns that this vulnerability could become a significant blind spot in national cybersecurity. His comments underscore the risk of prioritizing operational efficiency over foundational security controls, a concern shared by many CISOs facing exponential identity growth from cloud and AI platforms. Digital identity initiatives long supported by privacy advocates, civic technologists and digital modernization leaders were seen as critical to enabling secure, user-friendly access to government services. They aimed to streamline verification, reduce fraud and close equity gaps in federal access. The Biden administration had embraced digital IDs as the backbone of modern digital government. The Trump administration, however, rescinded these efforts. The accompanying fact sheet expressed concerns that digital identity mandates could be exploited to extend entitlements improperly, particularly to unauthorized immigrants. This decision reflects a broader skepticism toward centralized identity infrastructure and a desire to limit the federal government's role in managing citizen-level credentials. The Biden-era policy positioned artificial intelligence as a strategic asset for defense, encouraging public-private collaboration, dataset sharing and predictive threat detection at scale. The Trump administration's new directive narrows that scope significantly. Instead of promoting AI as a systemwide defense multiplier, the EO limits AI's use to managing system vulnerabilities and tracking indicators of compromise. This reflects concerns about over-reliance on technologies that are still evolving, opaque and in some cases unregulated. As Bocek noted, 'Proper AI development is a tool for predictive defense,' but without protections for the AI itself, it could become a new risk vector. The administration's position is clear: AI should be secured before it is scaled. This AI reframing also signals a philosophical divergence between leveraging AI as a force for innovation versus containing it as a potential liability. Whether that caution slows adoption or increases security maturity remains to be seen, but the message is unambiguous: the era of unchecked AI optimism in federal cybersecurity is over. This executive order is not a one-off. It is part of a broader realignment consistent with the principles laid out in Project 2025, a policy blueprint advocating for streamlined federal governance, stronger executive control, and targeted decentralization of agency authority. More orders are expected, particularly in areas such as offensive cyber capabilities, state-level infrastructure resilience, and the restructuring of agencies like CISA. Trump's June 2025 cybersecurity order is more than a policy shift. it is a recalibration of federal cyber strategy that prioritizes execution over oversight, industry collaboration over mandates, and sovereignty over standardization. For industry leaders, innovators, and government stakeholders alike, the takeaway is clear: cybersecurity is no longer just about compliance. It is about preparedness, adaptability, and national competitiveness in an AI-driven world. The next wave of policy will not be about fine-tuning compliance frameworks but will be about defending digital sovereignty. Those who can pivot fastest, and secure what matters most, will shape the next chapter of America's cyber future.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Karoline Leavitt rips Van Hollen, media for their portrayal of suspected human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called out Democrats and the media for defending illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Friday. Abrego Garcia, who was deported in March to an El Salvador mega prison, was returned to the U.S. Friday to answer federal charges for human smuggling and conspiracy. "The Justice Department's Grand Jury Indictment against Abrego Garcia proves the unhinged Democrat Party was wrong, and their stenographers in the Fake News Media were once again played like fools," Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News. Democrats Celebrate Return Of Suspected Human Trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia "Abrego Garcia was never an innocent 'Maryland Man'– Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker who has spent his entire life abusing innocent people, especially women and the most vulnerable," Leavitt added. She also called out Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador in April "to show solidarity" with Abrego Garcia. Read On The Fox News App "Abrego Garcia will now return to the United States to answer for his crimes and meet the full force of American justice," Leavitt said. "The Democrat lawmakers, namely Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen, and every single so-called 'journalist' who defended this illegal criminal abuser must immediately apologize to Garcia's victims. The Trump Administration will continue to hold criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law." Abrego Garcia previously lived in Maryland before the administration deported him to the Central American country's mega prison. According to Abrego Garcia's indictment, he played a "significant role" in a human smuggling ring operating for nearly a decade, and Bondi described him as a full-time smuggler who made more than 100 trips, transporting women, children and MS-13 gang-affiliated persons throughout the United States. Fox News Digital obtained Tennessee Highway Patrol bodycam footage from a 2022 traffic stop where troopers pulled over Abrego Garcia for speeding. Inside his vehicle were eight other men, raising immediate suspicions. "He's hauling these people for money," one trooper said. Law enforcement found $1,400 in cash and flagged Abrego Garcia in the National Crime Information Center, which returned a gang/terrorism alert. ICE was called, but never responded. Despite Abrego Garcia's alleged illegal activity, various media outlets continued to refer to him as a "Maryland man" Friday, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Fox News contributor Guy Benson shared a screenshot of their Breaking News alerts using the phrase. Axios and USA TODAY referred to him as a "Maryland man" or "Maryland father" on social article source: Karoline Leavitt rips Van Hollen, media for their portrayal of suspected human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia
